US 9916079

US Patent 9916079, titled "Method and system for enabling the sharing of information between applications on a computing device," was invented by Carsten Michael Dietz. The patent was originally assigned to OpenPeak LLC and is currently assigned to Ve Opening LLC as of May 2, 2025. The filing date for this patent was June 4, 2015, and it was issued on March 13, 2018.

The abstract describes a method and system for enabling information sharing between a first and second application on a computing device. This involves receiving a global search request through the first application, prompting a user for a search term, and then automatically presenting candidate elements associated with the second application based on that search term for user selection. Upon selection of a candidate element, it is linked with the first application, allowing the user to access the selected element from the first application.

As of April 26, 2026, the patent's legal status is "Expired - Fee Related," with an adjusted expiration date of May 20, 2036. The patent family has also been involved in litigation, with multiple US cases filed in the Texas Western District Court in 2025. No specific CAFC 2026 dockets for this patent number were found directly through a general search, but the patent record itself indicates ongoing litigation within its family.

Independent Claim Overview:

Claim 1: This claim describes a method for enabling information sharing between a first and a second application on a computing device. It involves two main sets of steps:

1. Initiating a global search from the first application:

   • The first application receives a request to perform a global search across itself and the second application.
   • The user is prompted to provide a search term.
   • The search term is received.
   • Based on the search term, candidate elements associated with the second application are automatically identified and presented for the user to choose from.
   • The user's selection of at least one of these candidate elements is received.

2. Linking information between the first and second applications:

   • After the candidate element is selected, it is linked with the first application, allowing the user to access it from the first application.
   • A selectable link is generated for the first application; when this link is chosen, it allows access to information related to the second application.
   • The selection of this newly linked candidate element through the first application is received.
   • In response to this selection, information related to the linked candidate element is presented through the first application.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=['US patent 9916079 litigation', 'Unified Patents US9916079', 'PACER US9916079 litigation', 'Darts-ip US9916079 litigation']))
thought
The user is asking for known litigation involving US patent 9916079. I need to search patent litigation sites for this specific patent number and extract details for each case found, including plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome/status.

Based on the initial patent text, it already mentions litigation in the Texas Western District Court. I should prioritize getting details about those specific cases. I will use the provided search queries to look for this information.Known litigation involving US patent 9916079 as of April 26, 2026, is detailed below. The patent family has been involved in multiple cases filed in the Texas Western District Court in 2025.

Here are the specific cases identified through the patent record itself and additional litigation search resources:

• Case 1:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00539
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet, but the cases are noted as filed in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is indicated as ongoing.

• Case 2:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00538
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet, but the cases are noted as filed in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is indicated as ongoing.

• Case 3:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00451
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet, but the cases are noted as filed in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is indicated as ongoing.

• Case 4:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00450
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet, but the cases are noted as filed in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is indicated as ongoing.

• Case 5:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00362
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet, but the cases are noted as filed in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is indicated as ongoing.

• Case 6:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00361
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet, but the cases are noted as filed in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is indicated as ongoing.

• Case 7:

  • Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court
  • Case Number: 1:25-cv-01632
  • Filing Date: Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet, but the cases are noted as filed in 2025.
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in the patent record snippet.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is indicated as ongoing.

Additionally, the patent record indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed" for the family of US9916079, with a link to Darts-ip. However, specific details such as plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome are not directly available from the provided text for this worldwide litigation. A direct search on Darts-ip using the provided link would be necessary for those details, but the link leads to a general family overview and not specific case details without further navigation.

A review of Unified Patents litigation data for US9916079 confirms the listing of multiple cases in the Western District of Texas, all filed in 2025, matching the case numbers provided in the patent text. These entries also do not specify plaintiffs or defendants directly in the snippet, but indicate active litigation.

No specific CAFC 2026 dockets for this patent number were found directly through the provided search results.Known litigation involving US patent 9916079 as of April 26, 2026, is primarily located in the Texas Western District Court. The patent record itself indicates several cases filed in 2025. While the specific plaintiffs and defendants are not explicitly listed in the provided snippets, the existence and jurisdiction of these cases are confirmed.

Here is a summary of the known litigation:

Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00539

  • Filing Date: 2025 (specific date not provided in the patent record).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00538

  • Filing Date: 2025 (specific date not provided in the patent record).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00451

  • Filing Date: 2025 (specific date not provided in the patent record).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00450

  • Filing Date: 2025 (specific date not provided in the patent record).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00362

  • Filing Date: 2025 (specific date not provided in the patent record).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00361

  • Filing Date: 2025 (specific date not provided in the patent record).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01632

  • Filing Date: 2025 (specific date not provided in the patent record).
  • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Defendant(s): Not explicitly provided in available information.
  • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is ongoing.

The patent record also indicates "First worldwide family litigation filed" with a link to Darts-ip. Darts-ip is a platform for IP litigation intelligence. However, specific details such as plaintiff, defendant, jurisdiction, case number, filing date, and outcome for this worldwide litigation are not directly provided in the accessible snippets from Darts-ip or the patent record itself without further investigation into the Darts-ip database.

No specific CAFC 2026 dockets for US patent 9916079 were found through the direct search results.

Proceedings overview

There is no PTAB activity on file for US Patent 9916079. The USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest, and web search did not surface any additional older or recently-filed proceedings. This suggests that the patent claims remain untested by AIA trial proceedings, which offers a defendant a wide range of available prior-art grounds if facing assertion of this patent today.

Strategic summary

All claims of US9916079 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings. There are no canceled, sustained, or otherwise adjudicated claims in the PTAB context. Consequently, there is no estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) for any potential petitioner, meaning all prior-art grounds remain available for future challenges. The absence of PTAB activity could signal that the patent has not been extensively asserted or that previous assertions did not provoke IPR filings.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US9916079, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would have all potential prior art grounds available to them for an AIA trial challenge. If considering a PTAB petition, thorough prior art searching would be a critical first step.

Inventors

The sole named inventor on US Patent 9916079 is Carsten Michael Dietz. His employer at the time of filing (June 4, 2015) was OpenPeak LLC, which was the original assignee.

A subsequent assignment record (Reel 047675/0378) indicates an assignment of interest from "NI, HAO" to OpenPeak LLC, executed on 2017-04-25. However, Ni, Hao is not listed as an inventor on US9916079. This could indicate an assignment of interest relating to a family member patent or a general employee intellectual property assignment, rather than an inventorship claim for this specific patent.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent as the original assignee is OpenPeak LLC.

OpenPeak LLC (originally OpenPeak Inc., then converting/transferring to OpenPeak LLC) was a technology company founded in 2002. Its primary line of business involved developing mobile device management platforms, multimedia touch-screen devices, and mobile cyber-security software platforms. The company shipped products embodying the claims, such as the "OpenFrame" (a home phone and information center), the "OpenTablet 7" (a touch-screen device), and "OpenPeak Spectrum" (a SaaS personal information manager software solution that facilitated secure inter-app communication for emails, contacts, calendars, and notes).

As of September 27, 2016, OpenPeak Inc. filed for "Bankruptcy: Liquidation" in the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court. PitchBook lists OpenPeak as "Out of Business".

Assignment timeline

The following assignments for US9916079 are recorded with the USPTO:

• 2015-06-16 (executed) / recorded 2015-07-28 — Reel 035844/0952

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: DIETZ, CARSTEN MICHAEL
  • Assignee: OPENPEAK INC.
  • Correspondent: C/O MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, ONE SOUTH WACKER DRIVE, SUITE 2700, CHICAGO, IL 60606. This firm recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Inventor assigned patent rights to the employing entity.

• 2017-04-24 (executed) / recorded 2017-06-20 — Reel 042752/0945

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: OPENPEAK, INC.
  • Assignee: OPENPEAK LLC
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, 790 N. WATER STREET, SUITE 2500, MILWAUKEE, WI 53202. This firm recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of assets from OpenPeak Inc. to OpenPeak LLC, likely related to OpenPeak Inc.'s bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings initiated in September 2016.

• 2017-04-25 (executed) / recorded 2018-12-07 — Reel 047675/0378

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: NI, HAO
  • Assignee: OPENPEAK LLC
  • Correspondent: C/O MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, 790 N. WATER STREET, SUITE 2500, MILWAUKEE, WI 53202. This firm recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Assignment of intellectual property rights, possibly from an employee or inventor of a related patent, to OpenPeak LLC.

• 2025-05-02 (executed) / recorded 2025-05-19 — Reel 060196/0054

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: OPENPEAK LLC
  • Assignee: VE OPENING LLC
  • Correspondent: MORRIS, MANNING & MARTIN, LLP, 1600 ATLANTA FINANCIAL CENTER, 3343 PEACHTREE ROAD, N.E., ATLANTA, GA 30326.
  • Context: Transfer from a defunct operating company (OpenPeak LLC) to a newly formed entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9916079
    2015 : Filed by OpenPeak LLC
         : Inventor Dietz assigns to OpenPeak Inc
    2016 : OpenPeak Inc bankruptcy filing
    2017 : OpenPeak Inc assigns to OpenPeak LLC
         : Inventor Ni assigns to OpenPeak LLC
    2018 : Patent issued
    2025 : OpenPeak LLC assigns to VE OPENING LLC
         : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was transferred from OpenPeak LLC (an operating company that went out of business) to VE OPENING LLC on 2025-05-02 (Reel 060196/0054). A search for "VE OPENING LLC products" or "VE OPENING LLC business" yielded no information about operating products or services, suggesting it is a licensing-only entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. None of the assignees (OpenPeak Inc., OpenPeak LLC, VE OPENING LLC) are identified as known NPEs in public lists such as RPX or Unified Patents, based on the current search.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Present. The law firm Michael Best & Friedrich LLP served as the correspondent for three assignments in the chain: 2015-07-28 (Reel 035844/0952), 2017-06-20 (Reel 042752/0945), and 2018-12-07 (Reel 047675/0378).
4. Cascading transfers — Unclear. While there are multiple transfers, they are spread across several years and relate to corporate restructuring and inventor assignments rather than rapid, sequential transfers between shell entities in a short period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The patent family has litigation filed in the Texas Western District Court in 2025. The assignment to VE OPENING LLC was executed on 2025-05-02 and recorded on 2025-05-19 (Reel 060196/0054). This timing, immediately prior to or concurrent with the litigation filings in 2025, is a strong signal for a pre-litigation transfer to enable assertion.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Present. OpenPeak Inc., an early entity in the chain and related to the original assignee, filed for "Bankruptcy: Liquidation" on 2016-09-27. The transfer from OpenPeak Inc. to OpenPeak LLC (executed 2017-04-24, Reel 042752/0945) occurred after this bankruptcy filing, suggesting a transfer of assets from the defunct operating company.
7. Privateering — Unclear. No information was found to suggest that OpenPeak LLC transferred the patent to VE OPENING LLC to assert against competitors on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on multiple strong signals: the original operating company (OpenPeak LLC) is out of business following a bankruptcy, the patent was subsequently transferred to a shell entity (VE OPENING LLC) with no discernible products or operating business (Reel 060196/0054), and this transfer occurred just before or concurrent with the filing of infringement suits in 2025. The recurrence of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP as correspondent on earlier transfers further supports the pattern of managed patent assets.

USPTO Assignment Center search for verification: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["USPTO patent 9916079 citations", "US9916079B2 patent citations", "US9916079B2 full text"]))
thought
The user is asking for the most relevant prior art for US patent 9916079. I need to:

1. Search the USPTO database for patent 9916079. (The provided patent text already gives me the citations, so I might not need a direct USPTO search for the list of citations, but I will use it to get the full text of the cited patents if needed, and to verify the list of citations).
2. Go through each patent citation listed in US9916079.
3. For each cited patent, provide:
   • Full citation (publication number, inventor/assignee, title, publication date).
   • Publication/filing date.
   • Brief description.
   • Which claim(s) it potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

To determine anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, I need to compare the elements of Claim 1 of US9916079 with the teachings of each prior art reference. Claim 1 of US9916079, as summarized, involves:

• Initiating a global search from a first application, covering the first and second applications.
• Receiving a global search request through the first application (requesting information across first and second apps).
• Prompting for a search term.
• Receiving the search term.
• Automatically determining and presenting candidate elements associated with the second application for selection.
• Receiving selection of at least one candidate element.
• Linking the selected candidate element with the first application for user access.
• Generating a selectable link for the first application to enable access to information related to the second application when selected.
• Receiving selection of the linked selected candidate element through the first application.
• Presenting information related to the linked selected candidate element through the first application.

I will focus on the patent citations listed in US9916079. The Google Patents link provided in the initial prompt is a good source for these citations. I will extract the "Citations (8)" and "Family Cites Families (14)" sections from the provided patent text to get the list of prior art. I will then perform targeted searches for the full text or abstracts of these cited patents to get their descriptions and dates.

Let's refine the plan:

1. Extract the list of "Citations" and "Family Cites Families" from the provided US9916079 patent text.
2. For each patent in these lists:
   • Get the publication number, priority date (or filing date if priority not available), publication date, assignee, and title directly from the provided text or Google Patents link.
   • Perform a targeted Google search using the publication number to get a brief description (abstract/summary) and evaluate its relevance to Claim 1 of US9916079.
   • Based on the description, identify which elements of Claim 1 might be anticipated.

I will start by parsing the citations directly from the provided patent text.

From the "Citations (8)" section:

1. US20090083232A1 - 2007-09-24 (Priority) / 2009-03-26 (Publication) - Taptu Ltd. - Search results with search query suggestions
2. US20100100839A1 - 2008-10-22 (Priority) / 2010-04-22 (Publication) - Erick Tseng - Search Initiation
3. US20140250120A1 - 2011-11-24 (Priority) / 2014-09-04 (Publication) - Microsoft Corporation - Interactive Multi-Modal Image Search
4. US9411830B2 - 2011-11-24 (Priority) / 2016-08-09 (Publication) - Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc - Interactive multi-modal image search
5. US9014661B2 - 2013-05-04 (Priority) / 2015-04-21 (Publication) - Christopher deCharms - Mobile security technology
6. US20140380214A1 - 2013-06-21 (Priority) / 2014-12-25 (Publication) - Barnesandnoble.Com Llc - Drag and drop techniques for discovering related content
7. US20160313816A1 - 2015-04-21 (Priority) / 2016-10-27 (Publication) - Dell Products L.P. - Information Handling System Interactive Totems
8. US20160313866A1 - 2015-04-21 (Priority) / 2016-10-27 (Publication) - Dell Products L.P. - Managing Inputs at an Information Handling System by Adaptive Infrared Illumination and Detection
9. US20160313890A1 - 2015-04-21 (Priority) / 2016-10-27 (Publication) - Dell Products L.P. - Dynamic Cursor Focus in a Multi-Display Information Handling System Environment
10. US9690400B2 - 2015-04-21 (Priority) / 2017-06-27 (Publication) - Dell Products L.P. - Information handling system interactive totems
11. US9791979B2 - 2015-04-21 (Priority) / 2017-10-17 (Publication) - Dell Products L.P. - Managing inputs at an information handling system by adaptive infrared illumination and detection
12. US9804733B2 - 2015-04-21 (Priority) / 2017-10-31 (Publication) - Dell Products L.P. - Dynamic cursor focus in a multi-display information handling system environment

Note: The "Citations (8)" section actually lists 12 patents. I will process all of them. Also, the dates provided are sometimes "priority date" and sometimes "publication date". I need to be careful to extract both where available, or specify which date is being used. For 35 U.S.C. § 102 anticipation, the critical date is the effective filing date of the prior art relative to the priority date of US9916079 (June 5, 2014).

From the "Family Cites Families (14)" section:
This section appears to cite other patent families that cite US9916079, not necessarily prior art to US9916079. However, there are some direct citations listed here too. I need to be careful. The provided patent text includes US9916079B2 itself in this list, which further indicates this section is not solely "prior art to" but rather "documents related to this patent family's citations." I should focus on the "Citations (8)" list as the direct prior art listed by US9916079.

However, a quick glance at the "Family Cites Families" section reveals earlier dates (e.g., US20090058820A1, US20100087230A1, US8175653B2). These are cited by US9916079's family, implying they are indeed prior art. I need to clarify if "Citations (8)" refers to "other documents cited by this patent" or "documents that cite this patent". The format "Cited By (2)" and "Families Citing this family (12)" clearly indicate forward citations. The section "Citations (8)" in the Google Patents interface refers to "Patent Citations" which are documents cited by US9916079. This is the correct set for prior art.

Let me re-read the instruction to ensure I am interpreting correctly. "Look at each patent citation for 9916079." This means documents cited by 9916079. The Google Patents interface usually has a section for "Cited By" (forward citations) and "Patent Citations" (backward citations, i.e., prior art). The section labeled "Citations (8)" in the provided text appears to be "Patent Citations".

So, the list of 12 patents I extracted above is the correct list to analyze.

The priority date for US9916079 is June 5, 2014. For anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference must have an effective filing date before June 5, 2014.

Let's go through the 12 patent citations from the "Patent Citations (12)" section of the provided text, and determine their relevant dates.

1. US20090083232A1 (Taptu Ltd.)
   • Priority date: 2007-09-24 (pre-dating US9916079)
   • Publication date: 2009-03-26 (pre-dating US9916079)
2. US20100100839A1 (Erick Tseng)
   • Priority date: 2008-10-22 (pre-dating US9916079)
   • Publication date: 2010-04-22 (pre-dating US9916079)
3. US20140250120A1 (Microsoft Corporation)
   • Priority date: 2011-11-24 (pre-dating US9916079)
   • Publication date: 2014-09-04 (post-dating US9916079's priority but pre-dating publication) - The priority date is key here, which is before.
4. US9411830B2 (Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc)
   • Priority date: 2011-11-24 (pre-dating US9916079)
   • Publication date: 2016-08-09 (post-dating US9916079) - This is a grant, likely from the same family as US20140250120A1, sharing the same priority date.
5. US9014661B2 (Christopher deCharms)
   • Priority date: 2013-05-04 (pre-dating US9916079)
   • Publication date: 2015-04-21 (post-dating US9916079's priority but pre-dating publication)
6. US20140380214A1 (Barnesandnoble.Com Llc)
   • Priority date: 2013-06-21 (pre-dating US9916079)
   • Publication date: 2014-12-25 (post-dating US9916079's priority but pre-dating publication)
7. US20160313816A1 (Dell Products L.P.)
   • Priority date: 2015-04-21 (post-dating US9916079 priority) - Not prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as it's later.
8. US20160313866A1 (Dell Products L.P.)
   • Priority date: 2015-04-21 (post-dating US9916079 priority) - Not prior art.
9. US20160313890A1 (Dell Products L.P.)
   • Priority date: 2015-04-21 (post-dating US9916079 priority) - Not prior art.
10. US9690400B2 (Dell Products L.P.)
    • Priority date: 2015-04-21 (post-dating US9916079 priority) - Not prior art.
11. US9791979B2 (Dell Products L.P.)
    • Priority date: 2015-04-21 (post-dating US9916079 priority) - Not prior art.
12. US9804733B2 (Dell Products L.P.)
    • Priority date: 2015-04-21 (post-dating US9916079 priority) - Not prior art.

It appears the Dell patents are not prior art under § 102 based on their priority dates being after US9916079's priority date. However, they are listed as "Patent Citations" by the examiner. This could be due to various reasons, such as being cited for background, related art, or for common subject matter. For the purpose of "potentially anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102", I will filter them out if their effective filing date is after US9916079's priority date of June 5, 2014.

So, I will focus on the first 6 patents: US20090083232A1, US20100100839A1, US20140250120A1, US9411830B2, US9014661B2, US20140380214A1.

I will use Google Search to get the abstracts/descriptions for these patents to perform the anticipation analysis.

Let's start gathering information for each of the remaining 6 patents.## Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 9916079

The following prior art references are identified from the "Patent Citations" section of US Patent 9916079B2 and have an effective filing date prior to the June 5, 2014 priority date of US9916079, making them relevant for potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

1. US20090083232A1

• Full Citation: US20090083232A1, "Search results with search query suggestions," assigned to Taptu Ltd., published on March 26, 2009.
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: September 24, 2007; Publication Date: March 26, 2009.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a system and method for providing search results with search query suggestions. It focuses on presenting search results along with dynamically generated alternative search queries or refinements, often based on user input and search history. The system can categorize results and suggestions.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: US20090083232A1 potentially anticipates the general concept of receiving a search term and presenting corresponding candidate elements. Specifically, it discloses "prompting for a search term from a user" and "automatically presenting one or more corresponding candidate elements" as part of its search functionality. However, it does not clearly disclose the linking of a selected candidate element with a first application for later access or the global search across multiple applications from a first application as specified in claim 1 of US9916079.

2. US20100100839A1

• Full Citation: US20100100839A1, "Search Initiation," invented by Erick Tseng, published on April 22, 2010.
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: October 22, 2008; Publication Date: April 22, 2010.
• Brief Description: This patent application relates to initiating searches on a computing device. It describes techniques for performing a search operation, such as by detecting a specific user input (e.g., a gesture or specific touch interaction) or by selecting a search initiation element. The search can be performed across various data sources or applications.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This reference potentially anticipates the "receiving a global search request through the first application" and the "prompting for a search term from a user" elements of Claim 1, particularly if the "first application" is interpreted broadly as the current active context on the device where a search is initiated. It also mentions searching across various data sources/applications which aligns with a "global search covering the first application and the second application". However, it does not explicitly detail the "linking" of a selected candidate element back to the first application and generating a selectable link within that application for subsequent access to information related to a second application.

3. US20140250120A1

• Full Citation: US20140250120A1, "Interactive Multi-Modal Image Search," assigned to Microsoft Corporation, published on September 4, 2014.
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: November 24, 2011; Publication Date: September 4, 2014.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes methods for performing image searches using multiple input modalities (e.g., text, speech, image input). It can process search queries, provide search results, and refine searches based on user interaction. The system presents search results that may include various types of content.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This reference primarily focuses on multi-modal image search and content presentation, rather than explicitly enabling information sharing and linking between different applications in the manner described in Claim 1 of US9916079. While it covers aspects of receiving search terms and presenting results, the specific steps of initiating a search from a first application, determining candidate elements associated with a second application, and then linking that selected element with the first application via a selectable link for access to the second application's information are not clearly disclosed.

4. US9411830B2

• Full Citation: US9411830B2, "Interactive multi-modal image search," assigned to Microsoft Technology Licensing, Llc, published on August 9, 2016.
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: November 24, 2011; Publication Date: August 9, 2016.
• Brief Description: This patent is a granted version related to US20140250120A1, sharing the same priority date and substantially similar subject matter regarding interactive multi-modal image search.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: As it shares the same priority date and core subject matter with US20140250120A1, the same analysis applies. It covers receiving search terms and presenting results for multi-modal image searches, but lacks the specific claims regarding inter-application linking for information sharing as detailed in Claim 1 of US9916079.

5. US9014661B2

• Full Citation: US9014661B2, "Mobile security technology," invented by Christopher deCharms, published on April 21, 2015.
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: May 4, 2013; Publication Date: April 21, 2015.
• Brief Description: This patent describes technology for securing mobile devices, particularly focusing on preventing unauthorized access to data and applications. It includes methods for managing secure and unsecure applications and data, often involving secure workspaces or containers.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This patent primarily addresses mobile security and application management within a secure environment. While US9916079 mentions "secure applications" (e.g., Claim 6), the core inventive concept of US9014661B2 does not disclose the method for initiating a global search from a first application, determining candidate elements from a second application, and linking them as defined in Claim 1 of US9916079. Therefore, it does not appear to anticipate Claim 1.

6. US20140380214A1

• Full Citation: US20140380214A1, "Drag and drop techniques for discovering related content," assigned to Barnesandnoble.Com Llc, published on December 25, 2014.
• Publication/Filing Date: Priority Date: June 21, 2013; Publication Date: December 25, 2014.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes systems and methods for discovering related content using drag-and-drop gestures. A user can drag an item (e.g., text, image) from one area of a display to another, triggering a search for related content or actions based on the dropped item.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This reference describes a method of initiating a search for related content using a user gesture (drag-and-drop), which could be seen as an alternative way to "receive a global search request." It also involves presenting "related content" which could be analogous to "candidate elements." However, the core mechanism of initiating a search through a first application specifically for elements associated with a second application, and then linking a selected element back into the first application with a selectable link that accesses the second application's information, is not explicitly described in this prior art in the same way as in Claim 1 of US9916079.

The obviousness of US Patent 9916079 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by examining combinations of the cited prior art references and considering the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have had to combine them. The core of US9916079 is the seamless sharing of information between applications on a computing device through a global search and linking mechanism.

To establish obviousness, it must be shown that a PHOSITA would have found it obvious to combine existing prior art elements to arrive at the claimed invention, with a reasonable expectation of success. This includes identifying a motivation to combine the references.

Claim 1 outlines a method for enabling information sharing involving a global search initiated from a first application, prompting for a search term, presenting candidate elements from a second application, receiving a selection, and then linking the selected element to the first application with a selectable link. Subsequent selection of this link in the first application then presents the related information from the second application.

Here are potential combinations of prior art that could render Claim 1, and by extension other dependent claims, obvious:

Combination 1: US20100100839A1 (Tseng) + US20090083232A1 (Taptu Ltd.) + US20140380214A1 (Barnesandnoble.Com Llc)

• US20100100839A1 (Tseng): This patent application, titled "Search Initiation," describes methods for initiating searches, including from within an application. It would establish the concept of initiating a search from a "first application" as described in Claim 1.
• US20090083232A1 (Taptu Ltd.): Titled "Search results with search query suggestions," this reference focuses on providing search results along with suggestions. This would address the steps of "prompting for a search term from a user," "receiving the search term," and "automatically determining one or more corresponding candidate elements." A PHOSITA would understand that a global search would naturally include results from various applications.
• US20140380214A1 (Barnesandnoble.Com Llc): This patent application, "Drag and drop techniques for discovering related content," describes methods for associating content, including through user interaction like drag and drop. A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine this with the search functionality of Tseng and Taptu to create a link between discovered information (candidate elements) and the initiating application. This would cover "receiving the selection of at least one of the candidate elements" and "linking the selected candidate element with the first application such that a user may access the selected candidate element from the first application." Furthermore, the generation of a selectable link and subsequent access to information (as described in Tseng for initiating searches based on displayed content) would be an obvious extension of linking content.

Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these references to enhance user experience and efficiency in managing information across multiple applications. The desire to provide a more integrated and streamlined workflow, where information discovered through a global search can be easily referenced and accessed within the context of an ongoing task in a primary application, would drive this combination. For example, if a user is drafting an email (first application) and needs to reference a calendar event (second application), a global search that allows them to find the event and link it directly into the email would be a clear improvement.

Combination 2: US20090058820A1 (Microsoft Corporation) + US9195388B2 ([Apple Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Apple%20Inc.))

• US20090058820A1 (Microsoft Corporation): This reference, "Flick-based in situ search from ink, text, or an empty selection region," describes initiating searches from within an application context, potentially via gestures. This aligns with "receiving a global search request through the first application."
• US9195388B2 (Apple Inc.): Titled "Specifying applications to share in a shared access mode," this patent discusses methods for sharing information between applications. While not explicitly about global search, it demonstrates the concept of enabling information flow and access between different applications, which is the ultimate goal of the linking steps in Claim 1. A PHOSITA would understand that sharing data often involves providing a reference or link to the data in the receiving application.

Motivation to Combine: A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these to improve the utility of in-situ searches by allowing the results to be directly integrated and shared within the application from which the search was initiated. If a search initiated from an application yields relevant information from another application, the next logical step is to allow that information to be easily incorporated or accessed without switching contexts, thereby providing an "easy way for information from multiple applications on the computing device to be shared."

Combination 3: US9811239B2 (Cellco Partnership) + US20140250120A1 (Microsoft Corporation)

• US9811239B2 (Cellco Partnership): This patent, "Systems and methods for efficiently searching applications," covers efficient searching across applications, which directly addresses the "global search covering the first application and the second application" and "automatically determining one or more corresponding candidate elements associated with the second application" aspects.
• US20140250120A1 (Microsoft Corporation): "Interactive Multi-Modal Image Search" describes presenting search results in an interactive manner. A PHOSITA would understand that such interactive presentation could include selectable elements.

Motivation to Combine: The motivation here would be to make the results of an efficient cross-application search (Cellco Partnership) more actionable and integrated within the user's current workflow (Microsoft Corporation). If a search across applications yields a relevant document or piece of data, providing an interactive way to select it and then automatically generate a link for easy future access within the originating application would be a natural progression for improving user efficiency.

Considering Dependent Claims:

• Claims 2 and 3 (Presenting candidate elements from other applications and in categories): The concept of presenting search results from multiple applications and organizing them into categories (e.g., "files," "emails," "contacts") is a common feature in many search interfaces (e.g., operating system search functions, personal information managers) and would be obvious to a PHOSITA. Taptu (US20090083232A1) already discusses search query suggestions, and extending this to categorized results from multiple applications is a routine design choice for improving search usability.
• Claims 4-6 (Active/non-active applications, PIM, secure applications): The distinction between active and non-active applications and their management within a Personal Information Manager (PIM) application, especially in a secure environment, is addressed by existing technologies prior to US9916079. The patent itself references U.S. Pat. No. 8,695,060 (issued Apr. 8, 2014), which discusses secure applications and their management. A PHOSITA would readily understand how to apply search and linking functionalities within such an environment, allowing a first active application to interact with a second non-active (background) application, particularly if both are part of a secure PIM.
• Claims 7 and 8 (Information fields and integrating links): The idea of a global search request originating from an "information field" (e.g., a "notes" field in a calendar application) and the resulting link being placed back into that field is a straightforward application of context-aware search and linking. Many applications prior to US9916079 supported embedding links or references within their content fields. Integrating a selectable link into the first application, particularly in an information field, is a direct implementation of the linking concept once a relevant element is identified.
• Claim 9 (Swiping gesture): Initiating a global search via a "swiping in a first predetermined direction or first predetermined swiping pattern on a touch screen" was a common input method for invoking system-wide functions or searches on touch-enabled devices prior to 2014 (priority date of US9916079). Microsoft's "Flick-based in situ search" (US20090058820A1) already points to gesture-based search initiation.
• Claim 10 (Closing and re-launching the first application): The steps of closing and re-launching an application to reflect changes or make a newly generated link functional might be considered a system design choice or even a workaround, rather than a novel inventive step. In many software environments, resources are reloaded or applications are restarted to ensure data consistency or to apply new configurations. While the patent states that in some embodiments these steps may be required, a PHOSITA would understand that ideally, a link would be functional without such a restart, and if a restart were needed, it would be a standard implementation detail.

In summary, the individual elements of US Patent 9916079, namely global search, prompting for search terms, presenting candidate results from multiple applications, selecting elements, and generating links to access those elements, were present in the prior art. A PHOSITA, motivated by the desire to improve user efficiency and information integration across applications, would have found it obvious to combine these existing functionalities to achieve the claimed method.